According to a "Psychology today" article which I linked to in one of my posts, most people refuse to change their minds even when presented with overwhelming evidence of the truth that contradicts their beliefs.

I have often wondered why, after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the recent failure of Venezuela, there are still so many true believers. People refuse to change their minds because they have an emotional need to believe in whatever they believe in. To abandon that belief is simply too painful and too traumatic for them.

So what is it in particular that makes the Left cling to their beliefs? I came across this article which sheds some light:

Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not.

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.

So leftists are envious people.

At this point, let me say that not all Socialists are envious of others. But the good professors in Oxford, Warwick and Chicago universities all confirm that on average leftists are more envious people than right-wingers. This caveat is for Steve, who does not like me to generalize.

Next quote:

Most surprising of all is a reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.

This is not surprising to me. People envious of richer people will want to make more money themselves. So leftists are greedy people. There is more to it:

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.

I don't know about hugging children, but I have read a book, "Who Really Cares", that says conservatives (IE right wingers) give more to charity. Let's focus on this. Leftists always present themselves as the champion of the poor. They call for income redistributive policies. When the right objects that their policies will lead to national bankruptcy, they will accuse their political opponents of being heartless and uncaring for the poor. Yet when asked to give their own money, they become Scrooges.

Why? Let's connect the dots. Research shows that leftists are (in general, though there are exceptions - How am I doing Steve?) more envious people and at the same time Scrooges when it comes to donating their money to the poor. So, it means that their desire for a more equal society is not motivated by compassion but by envy.

They just can't stand other people who have more than they have. This explains the phenomena of 'caviar Socialists'. No matter how rich you are, there are still people richer than you - unless you are the richest person in the world. Their envy drives them to push for wealth redistribution policies, not out of compassion but out of envy. They wish to take down people they are envious of.

To change their minds, they will need to admit that a society where those whom they envy cannot be taken down. This is too painful and traumatic for their envious nature to accept.

The article mentioned an experiment conducted by Oxford and Warwick scholars:

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.

Leftists, like all of us, cling to our opinions despite strong evidence that their beliefs are wrong. It is because there is some powerful emotions that blind us to reality. For leftists, they are blind to the fact that Socialism does not work. It leads to bankruptcy every time. But they can't see that because they are consumed with envy. They say that love is blind. Envy is also blind.

....................................................................................................................................
No wonder right-wingers are happier than Socialists. Their bitterness and envy made them unhappy. They are too self centred to form strong relations with others:

When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No.

Close ties are a key ingredient to happiness. Leftists are a miserable lot of people, consumed by envy, self centered, selfish and greedy for money. Speaking generally of course. There are exceptions.

According to a "Psychology today" article which I linked to in one of my posts, most people refuse to change their minds even when presented with overwhelming evidence of the truth that contradicts their beliefs.

I have often wondered why, after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the recent failure of Venezuela, there are still so many true believers. People refuse to change their minds because they have an emotional need to believe in whatever they believe in. To abandon that belief is simply too painful and too traumatic for them.

So what is it in particular that makes the Left cling to their beliefs? I came across this article which sheds some light:

Professor James Lindgren, of Northwestern University in Chicago, found those who favour the redistribution of wealth are more envious than those who do not.

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.

So leftists are envious people.

At this point, let me say that not all Socialists are envious of others. But the good professors in Oxford, Warwick and Chicago universities all confirm that on average leftists are more envious people than right-wingers. This caveat is for Steve, who does not like me to generalize.

Next quote:

Most surprising of all is a reputable research showing those on the Left are more interested in money than Right-wingers.

This is not surprising to me. People envious of richer people will want to make more money themselves. So leftists are greedy people. There is more to it:

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.

I don't know about hugging children, but I have read a book, "Who Really Cares", that says conservatives (IE right wingers) give more to charity. Let's focus on this. Leftists always present themselves as the champion of the poor. They call for income redistributive policies. When the right objects that their policies will lead to national bankruptcy, they will accuse their political opponents of being heartless and uncaring for the poor. Yet when asked to give their own money, they become Scrooges.

Why? Let's connect the dots. Research shows that leftists are (in general, though there are exceptions - How am I doing Steve?) more envious people and at the same time Scrooges when it comes to donating their money to the poor. So, it means that their desire for a more equal society is not motivated by compassion but by envy.

They just can't stand other people who have more than they have. This explains the phenomena of 'caviar Socialists'. No matter how rich you are, there are still people richer than you - unless you are the richest person in the world. Their envy drives them to push for wealth redistribution policies, not out of compassion but out of envy. They wish to take down people they are envious of.

To change their minds, they will need to admit that a society where those whom they envy cannot be taken down. This is too painful and traumatic for their envious nature to accept.

The article mentioned an experiment conducted by Oxford and Warwick scholars:

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour when they conducted an experiment.

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.

Leftists, like all of us, cling to our opinions despite strong evidence that their beliefs are wrong. It is because there is some powerful emotions that blind us to reality. For leftists, they are blind to the fact that Socialism does not work. It leads to bankruptcy every time. But they can't see that because they are consumed with envy. They say that love is blind. Envy is also blind.

....................................................................................................................................
No wonder right-wingers are happier than Socialists. Their bitterness and envy made them unhappy. They are too self centred to form strong relations with others:

When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the Left were nearly twice as likely to say No.

Close ties are a key ingredient to happiness. Leftists are a miserable lot of people, consumed by envy, self centered, selfish and greedy for money. Speaking generally of course. There are exceptions.

Socialism works very well Cass. Just not in the way it is generally advertised to work. You should think of it as an organized crime family. People in the famliy get want they want especially those at the top at the expense of those not part of the crime family

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

Socialism works very well Cass. Just not in the way it is generally advertised to work. You should think of it as an organized crime family. People in the family get want they want especially those at the top at the expense of those not part of the crime family

I always equated Socialism to robbery. If 60 people gang up to rob 40, it is considered a crime. But if 60 elect a government that taxes the 40 and redistribute the money to the 60, it is still a crime in my book.

But in time, everyone, including the 60 will become poorer. I believe those at the top of Socialist governments know this will ultimately bankrupt the country. But they don't care. They know promising people Other People's Money is popular. So they will gain power. With power, money and girls come later.

I always equated Socialism to robbery. If 60 people gang up to rob 40, it is considered a crime. But if 60 elect a government that taxes the 40 and redistribute the money to the 60, it is still a crime in my book.

Boy, oh boy, cass! The way you keep harping on this same point over the years I have been reading your posts; you must live in mortal fear of the great unwashed, underprivileged masses rising up and taking away your private fortune.

I always equated Socialism to robbery. If 60 people gang up to rob 40, it is considered a crime. But if 60 elect a government that taxes the 40 and redistribute the money to the 60, it is still a crime in my book.

Boy, oh boy, cass! The way you keep harping on this same point over the years I have been reading your posts; you must live in mortal fear of the great unwashed, underprivileged masses rising up and taking away your private fortune.

Private fortunes of the rich can easily be protected using tax havens. What I fear is that Socialism will lead to bankruptcy and dictatorship. That is what is happening now in Venezuela.

I am sure the rich in Venezuela have protected their fortunes in nearby tax havens such as Cayman Island, Bahamas, British Virgin Island etc. it is the middle class and the poor that get screwed.

Socialism works very well Cass. Just not in the way it is generally advertised to work. You should think of it as an organized crime family. People in the family get want they want especially those at the top at the expense of those not part of the crime family

I always equated Socialism to robbery. If 60 people gang up to rob 40, it is considered a crime. But if 60 elect a government that taxes the 40 and redistribute the money to the 60, it is still a crime in my book.

But in time, everyone, including the 60 will become poorer. I believe those at the top of Socialist governments know this will ultimately bankrupt the country. But they don't care. They know promising people Other People's Money is popular. So they will gain power. With power, money and girls come later.

Under socialism the elites become richer in real terms. Be it Chazvnistas or Nazis it is always the same

“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

Socialism works very well Cass. Just not in the way it is generally advertised to work. You should think of it as an organized crime family. People in the family get want they want especially those at the top at the expense of those not part of the crime family

I always equated Socialism to robbery. If 60 people gang up to rob 40, it is considered a crime. But if 60 elect a government that taxes the 40 and redistribute the money to the 60, it is still a crime in my book.

But in time, everyone, including the 60 will become poorer. I believe those at the top of Socialist governments know this will ultimately bankrupt the country. But they don't care. They know promising people Other People's Money is popular. So they will gain power. With power, money and girls come later.

Under socialism the elites become richer in real terms. Be it Chazvnistas or Nazis it is always the same

True. The cream of the Socialist hierarchy always grow rich. That's why I get so mad at them. I believe that they know in their hearts that their policies will cause poverty in the end but they don't care - so long as they grow rich. All they want are power, money and girls.

But the Sertorios and Neverfails of this world will always fall for it.

Private fortunes of the rich can easily be protected using tax havens. What I fear is that Socialism will lead to bankruptcy and dictatorship. That is what is happening now in Venezuela.

You do not need socialism to ruin a country cassowary; only mismanagement.

You credit Singapore's wealth to "free market capitalism": but has it ever occurred to you that it would never have happened at all were it not for decades of first class fiscal and economic management by your government?